Saturday, June 6, 2009

The many questions in Yediot Aharonot's weekend poll gives us a feel for Israeli society, much like many touches give the blind man a feel for the elephant. My friend Jo-Ann Mort suggests that the key finding is a solid majority for evacuation of settlements; and its is true, and reassuring, that by 52% to 43%, respondents now actually favor a "freeze." But I think we might keep feeling around.

The responses do reveal Obama's window of opportunity. But the window is small and it will take consistent outside power, hard and soft, to pry it open. The questions are themselves a kind of code. The responses reveal a deeply divided country that would prefer not to confront its own divisions.

FIRST, THE BAD news. About 54% approve "natural growth" in the more than 150 settlements that already exist. So saying "freeze" new settlements may simply mean no new settlements are necessary to consolidate Israel's presence in the Palestinian territories, whatever the fate of this presence proves to be. Besides, the majority for a freeze, like the minority against "natural growth," includes Arab respondents. If we are speaking of Israeli Jews alone, the numbers are more discouraging.

To the question, "Should the illegal outposts be evacuated?," 70% say yes and 25%, no. Think of the latter number as the core of the hard right, people who will turn on Netanyahu as readily as they turned on Ariel Sharon if the settlement project is put in jeopardy. When you eliminate Arab respondents, you can assume about a third of Jews. The larger right, about 41%, says Israel should "not agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state as part of a peace deal." Think of them as a layer of reactionaries added to the ideologues.

We are not looking here at Pollster.com data about, say, whether Virginia will fall into the blue column. This is not winner takes all. It is loser spoils everything. Israel's right is more like Serbia's in the 1980s than Virginia's in 2008. They live in a world apart. Some 12% say they will "resist" the evacuation of settlers. This is about a third of the third, 600,000 people, as many people as those who lived in the Palestinian Jewish Yishuv in 1948. They are armed. My working hypothesis, based on results of the recent election, is that these people disproportionately live in and around Jerusalem, the territories and in the development towns of the south.

WHICH BRINGS ME to the peace camp. To the question, "Should the birthrate in the settlements be taken under consideration and therefore allow construction for the sake of natural growth?," 54% say yes, 42% say no. The latter number is, in this case, the peace camp's core constituency, people who have come to regard the settlers and the orthodox as a threat to Israel's future and place in the world; they are unwilling to cut settlers any more slack. Their number is almost exactly equal to the 41% who say they are not "disappointed by Obama's policy towards Israel," and the 44% of those who say Netanyahu will "eventually agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state."

But we are speaking here mainly of people in the upper crust of the Tel-Aviv-to-Haifa corridor on the coastal plain, people with their face to America, Europe, and global opportunities. We are also speaking here of Arab citizens who, in a climate of tension, withdraw from ordinary politics entirely. Levels of cooperation between Israeli Jews and Arabs in political life remain slight, even in the peace camp, alas. If the right, opposing the government, provokes open violence, Israeli Arabs will themselves become violent and push the center to the right.

I have said often that the core constituency of the peace camp is very wary of directly confronting the core of the settlers and their sympathizers. The evidence for this fear is in the response to the vague question: "Is Obama's policy good for Israel?" This really translates as, Wouldn't you rather have a president like Bush who just loved us to crazy and helped us preserve the status quo? Some 53% say Obama is bad for Israel, and only 26% say good. There is an inchoate tension underlying this response, not a dispassionate assessment of whether the policy itself is right. There is no other way to explain why only 26% say Obama's policy is good, but some 55% say Israel should "agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state as part of a peace deal." (Again, take out Arabs and we are looking at a small minority of Jews eager for a confrontation.)

THE GOOD NEWS is really in the question, "Should Netanyahu acquiesce in Obama's demands or reject these even at the cost of sanctions?" Once the question is, in effect, What do you fear more, a confrontation with the settlers, or a world without America?, 56% say go with America. Note well: the rightist 40% say, fuck it, if America wants a showdown we'll give them one. The swing here, 15-20%, are mainly Russians, more educated Mizrahi Jews, and young people who otherwise imagine themselves strategic hardliners, but cannot imagine Israel as a Western pariah state.

And here, precisely, is Obama's opening. If he can maneuver Netanyahu into becoming, like Tzipi Livni, an advocate for preserving relations with America over any other concern--if Obama can, as he started to even before the Cairo speech, change Israel's national conversation from Iranian power to American power--he can at least hope to get a cooperative government that will enjoy majority support in the face of provocation from the violent minority.

If, for example, Obama and the Quartet can get Netanyahu to sign off on "two-states," which carries greater symbolic importance after Cairo, it seems almost inevitable that Netanhayu will give Livni what she wants to join a National Coalition. Among Kadima voters, 52% to 41%, would want Livni to join.

A unity government organized to respond to Obama will marginalize the hard right in the government, something that cannot be done in the streets--at least, not immediately. It will take a generation of shows of force by international troops and investors, of secular peace and economic growth, to thin out the Israeli right. Ditto Hamas. If Obama started a peace process in Cairo, this is it.

26 comments:

Anonymous
said...

There is an inchoate tension underlying this response, not a dispassionate assessment of whether the policy itself is right. There is no other way to explain why only 26% say Obama's policy is good, but some 55% say Israel should "agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state as part of a peace deal."

I don't know about that, these respondents might think that a Palestinian state would be acceptable but is not possible now, that Obama is being unfair in pressuring Israel more than the Palestinians, that settlement growth doesn't matter, etc.

Do people in Israel actually think Obama might impose sanctions on Israel, like economic sanctions? I can't imagine that's going to happen.

I do have to remind you that the previous government was officially committed to the "2-state solution", division of Jerusalem, and did not have parties in it coalstion that represent what you consider the "hard right" or the settlers, and if news reports are true, had a Prime Minister who offered under some conditions to recognize the Palestinian "right of return", and yet, no peace agreement was achieved, and in fact, it must be remembered that this "peace goverment" not only did NOT freeze the settlements, it DID bring us 2 bloody wars within 3 years. So this is the legacy of having a "peace government" in power.You "progressives" always seem to assume that Israel can have peace if only it would agree to give up Judea/Samaria and Jerusalem. But this is not what the Arabs say and this is not what they want. Abbas himself told the Washington Post that the situation in the "West Bank " is "good" (i.e. plenty of American and EU money is flowing into his pockets") and he can afford to wait the couple of years that he seems think that Obama needs to get rid of Netanyahu and put back in power a "peace government". It doesn't seem that he is willing to stick out his neck to make the concessions you and Obama think are necessary in order to reach an agreement. It seems the Arabs have a different view of their interests and goals than you do.

There is not question that a separate Palestinian state is not a realistic answer to problem between Jews and Arabs. It sound nice but it's only nice for so called "elites" so passionately defended by this blogger. The real people would suffer both economically and socially. In the time of world moving toward globalization to have an additional city-state with no economic or even social base does not make any sense. I agree with Bernard's "Hebrew Republic" concept, maybe fine tuned as a federal entity to give both ethnicities tribal satisfaction of "Jewish" or "Palestinian" state. Bigger problem are the theocratic tendencies of both ethnic groups. The secular mostly educated Jews and Arabs are already with the one foot positioned in Europe or North America. This will allow the "religious" leaders on both sides to spiral the conflict to all-or-nothing confrontation. Who ever wins will push the region into theocracy and socially and economically into middle ages. In short the thinking Arabs should basically say. "OK guys, you won the war, what's now?" We have millions of emotionally, socially and economically hurt people on both sides, how do we solve it, together? This is Ibn Verga

"...To celebrate "Hebrew Book Week," the paper asked a dozen or so of Israel's best selling writers, Yoram Kaniuk, David Grossman, Etgar Keret, to go out and cover something. The result feels both reassuringly retro and visionary at the same time."

What happens when you get tired of all the Sturm und Drang and soul seraching prose? What happens when you just wanna' read crap? If Batya Gur was still alive, they'd probably have her over at Maariv this week. Etgar Keret? Sure, if you want to THINK. But for real fun, I'll take the Harold Robbins of Israel any time, ahahahahahaha ;-) Aargh

"Nearly six of every 10 Israelis think Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should resist U.S. demands to completely freeze construction in Jewish West Bank settlements, according to a new poll released Friday. ... Maagar Mohot also found in a separate poll that two-thirds of Israelis have little appetite for dismantling West Bank settlements. Thirty-six percent oppose any evacuation as part of a final peace deal and 30 percent said only a small number should be dismantled." http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1092436.html

There are facts, and then there's just horseshit masquerading as a "fact". The use of partisan and prejudicial sources goes over a treat in Chelm. Unfortunately for Yankel and Rifkah, its not going to sway the President of the United States. To wit;

"..."Today's quasi-poll, sponsored by Ariel University Center, the only settlement university, and published only in the clear rightist Makor Rishon-Hatzofe newspaper and not in any mainstream Hebrew press, is a good example of the half-truths and lies that will be injected into the debate. The politically motivated and distorting wording of the poll questions is clear to anyone who reads them." Advertisement

According to J Street, the poll is an example of the 'trickery and deceit' that settlers and their supporters will use "in an effort to mislead the Obama Administration and the American public about Israeli sentiment regarding settlements."

The J Street statement also mentions a recent poll by Dahaf and one by Israeli daily newspaper Yediot Aharonot that found a majority of Israelis support a settlement freeze and 'acquiescence by Prime Minister Netanyahu to U.S. demands'."

Speaking of "trickery and deceit", J-Street are the champions. Their questions are very long and convoluted and usually end with something like "I support peace and a secure Israel which is what J-Street wants so I support them". The fact that J-Street accuses political opponents of "deceit and trickery", which they themselves are the champions simply reinforces the view that they are an anti-Zionist and anti-Israel organization that claims to "support peace and a strong Israel in order" to make their vile positions more palatable to uninformed American Jews. It wouldn't surprise me if at least part of their funding came from Arab sources.

Regarding the statement that the earlier poll supposedly claims that a majority of Israelis do want Netanyahu to capitulate to the diktat of Obama, all I can say is that you didn't read Dr Avishai's posting which shows that is not the case.If Netanyahu stands up to Obama and says NO, he will have a solid national consensus behind him.

"...The fact that J-Street accuses political opponents of "deceit and trickery", which they themselves are the champions simply reinforces the view that they are an anti-Zionist and anti-Israel organization that claims to "support peace and a strong Israel in order" to make their vile positions more palatable to uninformed American Jews. It wouldn't surprise me if at least part of their funding came from Arab sources."

I love the way you present these polemics of yours, as if you're some sort of unimpeachable font of information. J-Street is not Anti-zionist. J-Street is not Anti-Israel. What J-Street is, in fact, is Anti-You or should I say anti-settler, or perhaps even anti-fascist. You had the arrogance to conflate your interests with that of the rest of the country. Unfortunately, you did so without consulting them. You confused their apathy for validation. That was a mistake and now you're whining about it. The operative sentence in the quote is;

"...Today's quasi-poll, sponsored by Ariel University Center, the only settlement university, and published only in the clear rightist Makor Rishon-Hatzofe newspaper"

Fact: The poll was contrived and sourced out of Ariel University

Fact: It was disseminated through a right-wing propaganda sheet disguising itself as a newspaper.

These are prejudicial sources committed to an agenda, and that agenda is not about a set of questions designed for an honest appraisal of the situation nor is it about "journalism" or "keeping the public informed. Which brings us to another one of your disingenuities

Re.

"...uninformed American Jews"

Uniformed American Jews are not your problem. On the contrary, you've counted on their ignorance of facts on the ground for many years. American Jews have been enablers. Now, thanks to the internet, real-time news and you-tube, they are better informed, and being mostly honest and decent people, the more anti-settler they have become. Please Ben-David, stop wasting time. Do something useful and go help a settler pack his bags. LOL

No, Pirate-Shoded Yam-YOU go pack YOUR bags and go back to Morocco or Poland or wherever you or your ancestors came from to Palestine. Did you or they ask the Palestinians if they had their permission to come? Tell me, where do YOU live. Do you live on stolen Arab land, such as Ramat Aviv, Yafo, Ashdod, Ashqelon, Beersheva, Lod, Ramla, etc, etc. Oops, I forget, those Arabs fled in the face of attacks by Palmach and Hagana people who didn't quote the Bible like the modern "settlers" you can't abide. They quoted Karl Marx. That makes all the difference for you, although I can assure you that the Arab refugees who lost their land in the places I mentioned above don't see any difference. As I have said before you are attempting to transfer YOUR guilt onto someone else. It won't work and the Palestinians have made it clear they won't accept it. They don't want only 1967 reversed, they want 1947 and 1917 (Balfour) reversed. It's all or nothing.

In my comment about J-Street, I was referring to polls they have commission which have extremely convoluted, leading questions which were designed to give results that make it seem that the "majority" of American Jews support their positions, which is not the case.

"...In my comment about J-Street, I was referring to polls they have commission which have extremely convoluted, leading questions which were designed to give results that make it seem that the "majority" of American Jews support their positions, which is not the case."

I think its a safe bet that you'll find a correlation between the number Jews that support J-Streets positions and the number of Jews that voted for Obama. What was that number? Somewhere between 75-80%? And lets for the sake of argument say that half that number voted for him because of such issues as healthcare and the economy. Obamas attitudes re Israel and the settlements were by that time fairly well known. So maybe Mr. Obama's views didn't bother them or their own situation was so desperate they just didn't care. Either way, you're fucked nine ways from sunday. No Ben David, American Jews are in the tank for Mr. Obama and have a vested interest in seeing his policies succeeed. Now, might I recommend a moving company? I can promise excellent rates and good service, but I suggest you call ahead and try to avoid a spring rush.

Pirate-You still haven't told me what stolen Arab land that you as an illegal settler live on. Are you packing your bags in order to do your bit in solving the "Palestinian problem"?Regarding J-Street, even if there were NO Jews in the US, there would still be tens of millions of strong supporters of Israel in the US. Strong US governmental support for Zionism started in the middle of the NINETEENTH CENTURY, long before Jews had any significant electoral clout in the US. The whites in Rhodesia built a model state, just like you Leftists did here in Israel, but what happened to it? It disappeared because the people there had no roots in the country, just as you "progressives" have no real roots in Eretz Israel. The late Amos Elon left while pining for his long lost Jewish paradise in Berlin/Vienna, he also despised religious Jews, so why can't you follow him?And don't assume that every Jew who voted for Obama supports what he is doing now to Israel. But, in the final analysis, the Israeli gov't has to make its own decisions and not base them on what (generally uninformed) American Jewry thinks.

"..You still haven't told me what stolen Arab land that you as an illegal settler live on"

Because I don't. I live on land that was bought from an absentee landlord. My wifes grandfather was one of the first purchasers for Keren Kayemet. While he was busy for them, he got busy for himself and bought little parcels here and there. Now we own one of those parcels. Money changed hands and a contract was signed. Thats business, not theft.

"...The whites in Rhodesia built a model state, just like you Leftists did here in Israel, but what happened to it"

You need to stop engaging in a battle of wits with only your dick in your hand. The Rhodesians didn't build a modern state. They didn't build anything. They inherited a plantation from the british. There was no democracy in Rhodesia, just indentured servitude. Thats why it disappeared. This is a cautionary tale for the residents of Kiryat Arba and Itamar, not Tel Aviv.

"...The late Amos Elon left while pining for his long lost Jewish paradise in Berlin/Vienna, he also despised religious Jews, so why can't you follow him?"

What? And let the inmates run the asylum, I'm afraid not. Besides europe is a little expensive and I don't have the resources of the late Mr. Elon (May he rest in peace)

"...And don't assume that every Jew who voted for Obama supports what he is doing now to Israel."

The only person who is making assumptions about American Jews are you and your ilk. And as you are soon going to discover, it will be your undoing.

"...Your rage against the settlers and the what you call the religious "Talmud thumpers" is merely transferring the guilt YOU feel for betraying your fellow progressives by justifying Zionism which you are torn about."

and;

"...As I have said before you are attempting to transfer YOUR guilt onto someone else."

Several years ago I remember watching a Saturday Night Live episode in which William Shatner (Captain Kirk)was hosting. Anyway, they put him in this skit where he plays himself addressing a bunch of "Trekkies" at a Star Trek convention. As he stares out into a crowd of people dressed up like Spock and speaking Klingon, he broaches the query; "Do any of you have girlfriends?" That’s what I feel like. TJ Hooker talking to a bunch of people wearing pointy ears while playing with their phasers. There are many things I feel guilty about. Not spending enough time with my son. Not remembering my wedding anniversary. Wasting time on the internet when I should be doing something productive, so another bill can get paid. So believe me when I tell you that pissing off beknighted leftists is not one of those things. If fellow progressives feel that I’m betraying them, thats their tough luck. In any event, far from having any guilt feelings, I would find their discomfiture amusing and strangely gratifying.

Pirate-Very nice, you claim you live on Jewish-owned land. That was something like 10% IIRC of the land area of pre-67 Israel. The rest was taken from the Arabs. Okay, you are a morally superior person. What about Tel Aviv University sitting on Sheikh Munis? Well?

By the way, you don't know anything abou the history of Rhodesia. Rhodesia was always self-governing in practice, and had formal self-government since 1923. The British never built anything there, just like they didn't build the yishuv here, the Jews did.

Pirate-Look at this new poll about American attitudes towards Israel and the Palestinians. Please tell me where you see any indication that the American people would support Obama dumping hard on Israel, imposing a solution, etc.

"..Rhodesia was always self-governing in practice, and had formal self-government since 1923. The British never built anything there, just like they didn't build the yishuv here, the Jews did..."

Your "fife and drum" ideologically distorted grasp of history is pedestrian and child-like. You know Ben David, I don't think you're a stupid man. What pisses me off is that you like to play one on TV for the benefit of your cheering section.

"...Rhodesia was the name adopted when the formerly British colony of Southern Rhodesia declared itself independent (Unilateral Declaration of Independence) on 11 November 1965. The British Government continued to refer to the breakaway colony as 'Southern Rhodesia'. The name was also used with the establishment of Zimbabwe Rhodesia in 1979. After a brief return to colonial status as Southern Rhodesia from 1979 to 1980, the country became the independent nation of Zimbabwe in April 1980."

"...The British government adopted a policy of No Independence Before Majority African Rule, dictating that colonies with a substantial population of white settlers would not receive independence except under conditions of majority rule, regardless of whether the population had advanced sufficiently into the modern world to take part in it. The European minority Rhodesian Front (RF) government, led by Ian Smith, opposed the policy. The British Empire ruled over the self-governing colony of Southern Rhodesia until negotiations between Smith's government and the UK government broke down in 1965."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodesia

Self governing in practice? No, not in practice but as window dressing. That is not to say that the Rhodesians would not have preferred it otherwise, but as you know, theres no honor amongst theives. Perfidious Albion Strikes Again! LOL

Apparently after Ian Smith decided to declare independence, one of the first things on the white settler to-do list was to reduce the indiginous black population to the status of serf and tenant farmers.

"...During UDI, white tobacco farmers switched to the production of maize and beef for sale on the domestic market. This provided severe competition to black farmers, whose share of marketed home food production declined from 65% to 30% during the UDI period. The black peasant farming sector never recovered."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodesia

"...What about Tel Aviv University sitting on Sheikh Munis? Well?"

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disabuse you of another one of your delusions. There is no moral eqivalency between what was done in the formative years of the state and what is being done today. All countries are birthed in blood and crimes. It is then incumbent upon the citizens of said country to begin the process of socially evolving. Some countries are more succesful at this than others. The losers in this game tend to be countries drowning in tribalism or those without a legacy of representative gov't. Its funny that you should mention Rhodesia, since that failed state, along with Apartheid South Africa are the exceptions to the rule. What was acceptable in order to CREATE a safe, modern, viable haven for the Jewish people, to protect them from the excesses of the christians, is not acceptable when the threat has been neutralized. Furthermore to continue to use this now non-existent "threat" as a means of justifying the infliction of theft and deprivation on a captive population is repugnant in the eyes of honest men. That when taken into account along with the free housing, subsidized utilities, etc, that are all being paid for by working Israelis, is a chicanery that would put a street grifter to shame.

Re. Your JPost poll. Isn't The Jerusalem Post owned by Rupert Murdoch? Isn't he the same gentleman that own Fox News. The Fox News of the "fair and balanced" reporting? Please. Don't waste my time. If on the other hand you have a poll commisioned by an accredited, reputable University or some other reasonably unbiased source, I'd be happy to review it. Look, Ben David, lets get right with something here. I don't attach anymore credibility to the yafeh nefesh histrionics of Gideon Levy any more than I do for the jewish exceptionalism and neo-racism of Caroline Glick.

Pirate says:---------------------------------What was acceptable in order to CREATE a safe, modern, viable haven for the Jewish people, to protect them from the excesses of the christians, is not acceptable when the threat has been neutralized.-----------------------------------

I want you to find me a Palestinians who agrees with you. I mean about what was "acceptable" TO YOU in 1948. They don't want peace in the sense that you want peace, they want justice. This is what they say. You are giving us the old line, when confronted with their demands "let's not talk about the past, let's talk about the future.". Well, they insist on talking about the past. That's why they insist on the Palestinian "right of return", which you want to ignore or neutralize ("compensation").

Pirate says:-----------------------------------Because I don't. I live on land that was bought from an absentee landlord. My wifes grandfather was one of the first purchasers for Keren Kayemet. While he was busy for them, he got busy for himself and bought little parcels here and there. Now we own one of those parcels. Money changed hands and a contract was signed. Thats business, not theft.-----------------------------------

So they were setting up their own little Rhodesian-like plantation. Did they hire cheap Arab labor to work on it? Anyway, what gave your ancestors (who you have not metioned, by the way) and your wife's ancestors the right to take Palestine politically even if they did buy their land "legally". The vast majority of Jews living in Israel today did NOT buy the land from the Arabs...it was siezed after 1948. Jews bought land in Judea/Samaria before 1948 as well, much of it in east Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip (Kfar Darom), Gush Etzion. (Even Jimmy Carter likes Gush Etzion even if you don't) You're still a hypocrite.

The 'theft' of the Iranian election. The big news of the moment. The Western media immediately jumped on board, calling the election a "fraud," "theft," and "a crime scene". The US, for whatever reason, supported the opposition in this election – probably with money and CIA. There was more objective evidence that George W. Bush stole his two elections than there is at this time of election theft in Iran.

Many so called luxury brand swiss replica watches are merely sold on perceived value, and have no quality engineering placed into their design. A time piece that truly demonstrates exceptionality and distinction is one which carries the same splendor in quality as it does in brand recognition.

Praise for The Hebrew Republic

"Inspired and highly informative: a stunningly fresh narrative of a century old conflict."

Amos Elon, Author of The Pity of it All, Herzl, and The Israelis

“Avishai’s book is essential reading for anyone seeking to understand not only the genuine complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but also the real prospects for a sane and peaceful outcome."

Dov Frohman, Founding CEO, Intel-Israel

"During the past two decades, Professor Bernard Avishai has emerged as one of the most eloquent and penetrating analysts of the Israeli scene: of its politics, international relations, religious confrontations, and social fabric; of its national triumphs and failures; of its collective hopes and looming perils. This volume can only add to Avishai's reputation. The Hebrew Republic is indispensable reading even for veteran students of the Jewish State."

Prof. Howard M. Sachar, author of A History of Israel

"If justice and reason still count for anything, "The Hebrew Republic" will profoundly change the Middle East conversation, both here and in Israel. If the notions of a Jewish state and a democratic society sit uneasily together -- if they are, in some sense, thesis and antithesis -- then Bernard Avishai has brilliantly deliniated the indispensable synthesis. This is an exciting and supremely important book."

Hendrik Hertzberg, Senior Editor and Staff Writer, The New Yorker

“Anyone who cares about Israel, the Palestinians, or peace should read The Hebrew Republic—a comprehensive analysis, a compelling vision, a wrenching cri de coeur. Of all the brilliant, brave voices heard here—and there are many—none is as indispensable as Avishai’s, with this book, has now become.”

James Carroll, Author of Constantine’s Sword and House of War

“Bernard Avishai offers a fascinating solution to Israel's existential dilemma: the choice between an ethno-national state, which discriminates against its many non-Jewish citizens, or a binational state that loses its Jewish nature. The book scrutinizes the flaws of Israeli democracy, but is written with a deep love, and provides an upbeat and highly original analysis of the potential of Israel’s new economy. It is a must for anybody who wants to understand today's Israel.”

Prof. Yoram Peri, Head of the Rothschild Caesarea School of Communication, Tel Aviv University, Author of Generals in the Cabinet Room

"The central issue in bringing about peace in the Middle East is whether Israel and the Israelis can find their place in the region where they have carved out their homeland in a manner that is acceptable to others in the region, within and beyond their borders. Bernard Avishai confronts Israelis with the fundamental questions, which only they can answer, and which they cannot indefinitely turn their backs on, about who and what they are. It is hard to imagine clever third-party efforts succeeding as long as these questions remain unanswered. He has made a lucid contribution to solving one of the great problems of our time.”

Amb. Alvaro de Soto, Former UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process